On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 04:53:31PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>> "OP" == Orion Poplawski
<orion(a)cora.nwra.com> writes:
OP> Most of the drupal modules that I've looked into packaging do not
OP> have any license preamble in the code. They contain a copy of the
OP> GPLv2 license in LICENSE.txt. As such, I've marked them as GPLv2.
Shouldn't that be GPL+?
Obviously you should get clarification from upstream, but according to
clause 9 of version 2 of the GPL text, you can choose any version at
all:
"If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you
may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation."
See also
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#How_do_I_figure_out_what_vers...
OP> According to
http://drupal.org/licensing/faq/#q4 modules on the
OP>
drupal.org cvs site should be GPLv2+, and I've had requests to
OP> update the license tag:
In the past we have referred to upstream web sites in the case that we
had reasonable certainty that the web site and the code had the same
author. Is that the case here?
As the FAQ states:
"4: I want to release my work under GPL version 3 or under GPL version
2-only. Can I do so and host it on Drupal.org?
You can release your work under any GPL version 2 or later compatible
license, however, you may only check it into Drupal's CVS repository
if you are releasing it under the same license as Drupal itself, that
is, GPL version 2 or later. If you are unable or unwilling to do so,
do not check it into Drupal's CVS repository."
So if the module is carried in Drupal CVS, it *must* necessarily be
licensed GPLv2+.
--
Paul W. Frields
http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - -
http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
Where open source multiplies:
http://opensource.com